Patent Act

Summary:  In Array BioPharma Inc. v Deputy Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court set aside the Controller’s refusal of Array BioPharma’s combination patent application and remanded it for fresh consideration.  The Court held that the Controller had wrongly applied Section 3(d) to a combination of independent active agents, and incorrectly treated a product claim as a method-of-treatment claim. The ruling reinforces that combination patent claims must be assessed on proper inventive-step reasoning tied to the closest prior art and that Section 3(d) does not bar combinations of distinct, independently active pharmaceutical (or agrochemical) agents, giving innovators a stronger footing in defending multi-component combination inventions in India.

Continue Reading Significant Ruling on Combination Patents: Delhi High Court Highlights Inventive Step and Patentability Criteria
Calcutta High Court Clarifies Scope of Appeals in Trademark Matters: Exploring the theory of ‘trappings of court’ vis-à-vis Registrar’s office

Summary: In a significant ruling that clarifies the appellate framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ( “the Act”), and Trade Marks Rules, 2017 ( “the Rules”), the  Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (“Hon’ble Division Bench”) has held that a Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal under Section 91 of the Act. The judgment in Glorious Investment Limited vs. Dunlop International Limited & Anr., TEMPAPO-IPD 5 of 2025, provides crucial insights into the legislative intent behind the current trademark regime, the nature of quasi-judicial authorities under the Act, as well as the applicability of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”).

Continue Reading Calcutta High Court Clarifies Scope of Appeals in Trademark Matters: Exploring the theory of ‘trappings of court’ vis-à-vis Registrar’s office
Weather “CROMPTON PEBBLE” and “PEBBLE” are similar or identical?

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited’s (Crompton) appeal has been dismissed, upholding the order that restrains Crompton from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in electric irons under the impugned “PEBBLE” trademark, due to V Guard Industries Limited’s (V Guard) application.

Continue Reading Whether “CROMPTON PEBBLE” and “PEBBLE” are similar or identical?
Invention that is a series of instructions does not meet the criteria for patent protection under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act

The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a BlackBerry Limited (hereinafter “Appellant”) appeal against the Assistant Controller of Patent’s refusal of its patent application in the field of wireless communication titled “Administration of Wireless Systems[1]”. The application was for an invention that manages wireless systems by configuring wireless client devices using both primary and secondary wireless servers. The ld. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejected the application on the ground of non-patentability under Section 3(k) [2], stating that the subject patent application was directed towards set of instructions and which were purely functional and lacking any inventive hardware features. 

Continue Reading Invention that is a series of instructions does not meet the criteria for patent protection under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act
Synergism to be displayed across the breadth of patent claim

Willowood Chemicals Private Limited’s (hereinafter “the Patentee”) patent was revoked by the Controller of Patents (hereinafter “Controller”) due to post-grant opposition as the Controller held that the Patentee had failed to display any technical advancement and synergism between the components of the claimed composition across the breath of the claims.

Continue Reading Synergism to be displayed across the breadth of patent claim